lilo vs grub

[Mark Mielke]

On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 10:54:42PM -0400, Jim Cornette wrote:
> I think that LILO and GRUB should both be included in the distribution. 
> An important utility like a boot loader should have a backup version. I 
> needed lilo to restore my ability to boot when I changed drives on the 
> primary master.
> Grub failed on an intermediate stage and I would have not been able to 
> boot my system successfully without having lilo.

Why didn't you have a backup grub partition? You didn't need lilo to boot.
You happened to have lilo. Note the difference. Also, grub can be put
stand-alone on a floppy that allows you to re-install grub without booting
the system up. Lilo gives you nothing of this.

> If it is a better choice for the eyes free mode for users. It makes even 
> more sense to start including it again.

Why is it a better choice? Why does it make even more sense to start
including again?

I find lilo to be dangerous - if you don't run lilo after moving the kernel
image, or installation a new kernel image, you are dead. Grub gives you
several different options to work from.

I see no reason why lilo should continue to be developed, or why it should
be re-included into fedora or redhat.

If you have a problem with how it works 'eyes free', your efforts would be
better spent making suggestions to the grub developers, or even better,
providing source code patches for them to work from.

Cheers,
mark

-- 
mark at mielke.cc/markm at ncf.ca/markm at nortelnetworks.com __________________________
.  .  _  ._  . .   .__    .  . ._. .__ .   . . .__  | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/    |_     |\/|  |  |_  |   |/  |_   | 
|  | | | | \ | \   |__ .  |  | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__  | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

  One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
                       and in the darkness bind them...

                           http://mark.mielke.cc/